Kabiru Musa Rangaza V. Micro Plastic Company Limited (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of Kano State High Court of justice delivered on 27th day of May, 2010 by I. M. Karaye J. The brief summary of the facts that gave rise to this appeal are that sequel to the agency relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent, the Respondent supplied the Appellant with trucks of cement which the Appellant sold to government contractors on credit basis.

At a certain point in time the agency relationship that hitherto existed between the Appellant and the Respondent was terminated by the Appellant.

As at the time of the termination of the said agency relationship, the Respondent claimed that the Appellant was indebted to it to the tune of N12,986,500.00 (Twelve million, nine Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand, Five Hundred Naira Only).

The Appellant on the other hand admitted that his outstanding indebtedness to the Respondent was N10,500,000.00 (Ten Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only).

At the conclusion of the trial, the lower Court upheld the Respondent’s claim in its entirety.

Aggrieved by the said decision of the lower Court, the Appellant appealed to this Court through a Notice of Appeal dated 28/5/2010. The said Notice of appeal contained 11 Grounds of Appeal.

Briefs of argument were in accordance with the relevant rules of this Court duly filed and exchanged and at the hearing of this appeal the parties duly adopted the arguments and submissions contained in their respective briefs and reply.

The Appellant’s brief dated 2/6/2012 and filed on 5/6/2012 was settled by M. E Sheriff while the Respondent’s brief dated 17/9/2012 and filed on 18/9/2012 was settled by I. G. Waru.

The Appellant’s reply brief dated 5/12/2012 and filed on 12/2/2012 was settled by M.E. Sheriff.

The Appellant in his brief of argument formulated 2 issues for determination to wit;

“1. Whether the decision of the trial High Court was not wrong by holding that an agent of disclosed principal can incur personal liability in an agency relationship.

2. Whether the decision of the trial High Court was not perverse when it held that filing a Notice of Intention to Defend was not enough to transfer a matter to a general cause list.

The Respondent on the other hand formulated a sole issue for determination to wit;

“Whether the Appellant has shown and/or established any defence on the merit to justify granting him leave to defend and/or cause the transfer of the suit No.K/91/2010 from an Undefended List to the General Cause List.”